>>12237160>>Their digits are different.>So?So by definition, they are different numbers. By definition, 0.999... is less than 1. But you insist on claiming that different numbers can have the same value. That's absurd. Different numbers must have different values, so 0.999... must have a different value than 1, and thus 0.999... does not equal 1. It doesn't get much simpler than this.
>I visually proved it’s possible to divide things into thirds right here.The only thing you "visually proved" is that there is a method to approximate something like 1/3. Trust me, I have tried this method on my computer, which unlike physically folding a piece of paper, is guaranteed to be exact in the process. Nevertheless, in some cases I do not get the whole length when I multiply the divided measure by 3. This proves that the method will most of the time only give approximations of 1/3, not the actual thing. So no, I am not "denying the evidence presented right before my eyes."
>>12237175Every number has an infinite amount of digits. It's just that for whole numbers, most of those infinite digits are 0. Emptiness has always been used to denote a 0 digit, it's just more recently (a few hundred years ago) that we have chosen to use a symbol for those 0 digits that are important to notate to reduce ambiguity. 5 is shorthand for 5.000..., but we don't write out the 0's because 5 is unambiguous. 5 7 is shorthand for 5007.000..., but we usually put the 0's in between because 5 7 is ambiguous.
>>12237196>no argument 
